Complaint of use of excessive force - Metropolitan Police Service, May 2017

At approximately 8.50pm on Monday 29 May 2017 a Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) officer removed a man from the rear of a police van at an east London custody suite. The man was handcuffed with his hands behind his back. He requested the handcuffs were loosened and complained they were too tight.

The police officer said he stood behind the man in order to loosen the handcuffs. The officer said that, while doing this, he became concerned about the man’s behaviour and believed the man may be about to assault him. The officer stated he tried to knock the man off balance with a ‘leg sweep’ in order to bring him to the floor and gain better control.

The man lost his footing and fell to the floor, hitting his head. He suffered facial injuries that required stiches. The man made a complaint about the officer’s use of force and the way his injuries had been recorded on the custody record.

This investigation obtained CCTV footage from a number of cameras as well as statements from police witnesses and the man who made the complaint. The officer who used force was interviewed and his actions were considered against training and guidance. The custody record completed for the injured man was analysed to establish the information which had been recorded.

During the investigation we considered there was an indication one officer had committed a criminal offence, and referred the matter to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) for charging advice. After considering the report and available material, the CPS advised there was insufficient evidence to support a prosecution.

Based the on evidence available, the Investigator was of the opinion that the officer had a case to answer for gross misconduct, and a recommendation was made to the MPS that a misconduct hearing be scheduled.

After reviewing our report, the MPS disagreed that the officer’s actions amounted to gross misconduct and, after considering their rationale, we agreed that the matter be dealt with as one of misconduct only.

A misconduct meeting was held, at which the officer said it was his honestly held belief he was about to be assaulted by the complainant. The chair of the meeting accepted this and considered there was insufficient evidence which indicated that the use of force, in the circumstances, had been unreasonable. No further action was therefore taken against the officer.

The complaint about the information recording on the custody record was not upheld.